Evaluation of New
Homelessness Support
Services in Tasmania
Report three: Evaluation of the Specialist Assessment
and Intervention Practitioners Program
Prepared by the Housing and Community Research Unit,
University of Tasmania
July 2013
1
This report was prepared by Dr. Barbara Lloyd, Joel Stafford and Dr. Michelle Gabriel.
Contact details:
Housing and Community Research Unit (HACRU)
School of Sociology and Social Work
University of Tasmania
http://www.utas.edu.au/sociology-social-work/centres/hacru/
Acknowledgements
The HACRU team would like to thank the service workers and clients who participated in the
evaluation. Their thoughtful reflections have enabled the team to gain a comprehensive
picture of the delivery of the program from a range of perspectives.
The team would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Housing Tasmania
staff in locating and collating information relevant to the program.
2
ACRONYMS
ACS
Agency Collaboration Strategy
ASPO
Access and Support Planning Officer
C
Client
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services
FVCS
Family Violence Counselling and Support Service
HT
Housing Tasmania
NTV
Notice to Vacate
SAIP
Specialist Assessment Intervention Practitioners
SP
Service Provider
THP
Tasmanian Homelessness Plan
TTL
Tenancy Team Leader
3
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 2
ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... 3
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 6
1
2
3
Overview of the Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioner program .............. 9
1.1
Background............................................................................................................. 9
1.2
Special issues facing homelessness services ....................................................... 10
1.3
Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioners: Program logic ................... 11
1.4
Service outline ...................................................................................................... 12
Data Collection Method and Analysis ........................................................................... 17
2.1
Description of service activity data ........................................................................ 17
2.2
Service provider consultation ................................................................................ 17
2.3
Consultation with SAIP clients .............................................................................. 18
Evaluation of Service Provision and Outputs ................................................................ 20
3.1
Service Activity: Description and Reporting ........................................................... 20
3.1.1
Description of service levels........................................................................... 20
3.1.2
Client demographics ...................................................................................... 24
3.1.3
Performance measurement of service activity ................................................ 25
Output performance.................................................................................................. 26
Timeliness of service delivery ................................................................................... 29
Staff utilisation .......................................................................................................... 30
3.2
Implementation of the SAIP Service ...................................................................... 33
Question 1: How effectively does the SAIP identify and engage suitable Housing
Tasmania clients whose tenancies are at risk? ......................................................... 33
Question 2: How effectively are clients (re)connected to specialist services and to
regular tenancy services through the SAIP? ............................................................. 38
Question 3: How effectively is the risk to clients’ tenancies reduced by engagement
with the SAIP? .......................................................................................................... 41
Question 4: In what ways did service providers consider that the SAIP model could be
improved? ................................................................................................................ 44
4
Evaluation of Service Participant Outcomes................................................................. 46
Question 1: What factors had influenced client participants’ decision to engage with
the SAIP? ................................................................................................................. 46
4
Question 2: What factors had facilitated client participants’ collaboration with the
SAIP? ....................................................................................................................... 48
Question 3: To what extent have clients’ health and wellbeing living improved as a
result of the SAIP intervention? ................................................................................ 49
Question 4: To what extent have clients’ social connections been enhanced through
engagement with the SAIP intervention? .................................................................. 51
5
Discussion of Service Provision and Outcome Information .......................................... 52
6
Recommendations to Stakeholders.............................................................................. 57
References ......................................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................... 62
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This evaluation of Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioner (SAIP) program is the
third output of the Housing and Community Research Unit’s (HACRU) Evaluation of New
Homelessness Support Services in Tasmania.The SAIP commenced operation in January
2011 with the objective of providing specialist support services to Housing Tasmania clients
whose tenancies are at high risk of failure.
In Chapter 1, we provide an overview of the Specialist Assessment and Intervention
Practitioner (SAIP) program. This includes: background information about the establishment
of the program; a summary of special issues facing homelessness services; insight into the
logic of the SAIP program; and a description of the parameters of the SAIP program.
In Chapter 2, we provide an outline of the data collection method and analysis for the
evaluation. The team collated and summarised available demographic and service activity
data. The team then consulted key service providers and clients in order to gain insight into
the implementation of the service. The team consulted with five SAIP service providers and
five SAIP clients from the north and south of Tasmania. Interviews were conducted between
the 20th May 2013 and the 11thJune 2013. All interviews were audio-recorded with
participants’ informed consent and later transcribed and subject to content and thematic
analysis.
In Chapter 3, we provide an evaluation of service provision and outputs. In Section 3.1, we
begin with a description of the SAIP service levels and client demographics. We then
examine the performance measurement of service activity, which includes: output
performance; timeliness of service delivery; and staff utilisation. In section 3.2, we evaluate
the implementation of the SAIP service in terms of how effective the service has been in:
identifying and engaging suitable Housing Tasmania clients whose tenancies are at risk;
(re)connecting clients to specialist services and to regular tenancy services; and sustaining
tenancies. Service providers also provided insight into opportunities for improving the SAIP
program.
In Chapter 4, we present the evaluation of service participant outcomes. We begin by
identifying the key factors that had influenced client participants’ decision to engage with and
collaborate with SAIP. Service participant outcomes are then evaluated in terms of:
improvements in client health and wellbeing; and improvement in social connection and
reduction in social isolation.
6
In Chapter 5, we provide a discussion of service provision and outcome information.
Improvements in client outcomes, including increased tenancy stability, better health and
wellbeing and reduced social isolation, strongly support the efficacy of the SAIP program
within a range of contexts. Much of this support was delivered in an indirect and informal
manner, in response to situations and behaviours that were either directly or indirectly
impacting on tenancies. These interventions were of central significance in helping clients to
become more open and responsive to alternative points of view and to more productive
future possibilities.
The SAIP initiative was also successful in building, and in some cases restoring, clients’ trust
in the Housing Tasmania system, and in improving communication and rapport between
clients and tenancy officers. Clients reported that the SAIP initiative had supported them
when a practitioner recognised the value of the small steps they had taken to achieve
desired outcomes, even though those outcomes had yet to be fully realised.
However, Housing Tasmania staff found it challenging to attract appropriate applications for
the SAIP position in the North West of Tasmania and this raises concerns about Housing
Tasmania’s capacity to respond to ‘at risk’ tenancies and to distressed clients in that service
region. Difficulties in communicating across professional boundaries also meant that clients
may not get access to necessary drug rehabilitation or mental health support in all regions,
despite the best efforts of SAIPs to implement and expedite referrals.
Client responses point to a mismatch between the service providers’ (including SAIP
managers and practitioners) and the clients’ perceptions of the fit between the tenancy
officer and the SAIP roles. While service providers understand the relationship as
complementary, clients tended to see them as opposed. Despite this, the service providers’
comments demonstrate that tenancy officers are motivated to understand the complex
factors underlying the non-compliant or disruptive behaviours of some Housing Tasmania
tenants, and that receiving informal ‘training’ from SAIPs has increased their understanding
of these factors. This increased understanding seems to have assisted tenancy officers to
manage Housing Tasmania properties more effectively within the scope of their duties.
The evaluation suggests that one of the major results of the SAIP program, besides the
client outcomes it achieved, is the clarity it can bring to the multiple roles required by
Housing Tasmania staff in order to deliver a high quality rental accommodation service that
is well-integrated into the broader social housing sector in Tasmania.
7
In Chapter 6, we list key recommendations. We recommend that the program be resumed,
but with some modifications. These include:
1. Improve the transparency and availability of information about the purpose of
Housing Tasmania.
2. Clarify the roles of tenancy staff.
3. Investigate best practice for tenancy and support roles.
4. Apply clarified assessment and intervention roles to all Housing Tasmania clients so
that those directly responsible for problem behaviours can be better identified and
supported.
5. Further analyse SAIP cases involving multiple referrals.
6. Simplify and standardise the management of tenancies with a risk profile associated
with unsustainable tenancies.
7. Provide greater support to staff by defining and communicating appropriate
performance reporting and data analysis specifications.
8. Make use of Housing Tasmania data collections to inform and monitor resource
allocation for in-house services and to scope, fund and performance measure
outsourced services.
9. Identify a benchmark for intervention and assessment process. This entails
comparing the rate at which public rental tenancies end where significant practitioner
involvement is present and where it is absent.
10. Tie the use of assessment tools to data collection systems to better monitor which
critical interventions are required to promote sustainable tenancies.
8
1 Overview of the Specialist Assessment and Intervention
Practitioner program
In this chapter, we provide an overview of the Specialist Assessment and Intervention
Practitioner (SAIP) program. This includes: background information about the establishment
of the SAIP program; a summary of special issues facing homelessness services; insight
into the logic of the SAIP program; and a description of the parameters of the SAIP program.
1.1 Background
This evaluation of Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioner (SAIP) program is the
third output of the Housing and Community Research Unit’s (HACRU) Evaluation of New
Homelessness Support Services in Tasmania. The SAIP commenced operation in January
2011 with the objective of providing specialist support services to Housing Tasmania clients
whose tenancies are at high risk of failure.
The SAIP program forms one initiative amongst a suite of integrated responses developed
by Housing Tasmania in accord with the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness
(NPAH). The NPAH was signed in 2008 and ended 30th June 2013 and it provided $18.9
million dollars of joint funding to Tasmania over four years. Initiatives delivered under the
NPAH are intended to contribute to the National Affordable Housing Agreement objective of
supporting people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to achieve sustainable
housing and social inclusion. These initiatives emphasise: the timeliness of service
interventions; increasing social integration of people at risk of homelessness; and moving
people out of the crisis services system into stable forms of tenure. This approach is
translated into the Tasmanian context through the Tasmanian Homelessness
Implementation Plan (DHHS, 2013; See also DHHS 2010, 2012a).
According to the Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan (DHHS 2013) the initiatives
of the NPAH are designed to compliment other initiatives undertaken in Tasmania either to
achieve the objectives of other national partnership agreements or in accord with reforms to
the Tasmanian public service. The implementation plan cites several other initiatives
including: reforms to the Department of Health and Human Services principally aimed at
achieving better integration and co-ordination of the commissioning and delivery of family
support services (approx. $35 million)1; and additional funding to reform aspects of Mental
Health Services (approx. $47 million)2 and Drug and Alcohol Services (approx. $17.1
1
Commencing in 2008-09 and ending in 2012-2013.
Commencing in 2008-09 and ending in 2013-2014.
2
9
million)3, again with a focus on achieving integration between specialist services, allied
health and human service providers, and private and community based service
organisations.
1.2 Special issues facing homelessness services
There are a number of challenges associated with delivering services to people who are
homeless or people who are at risk of homelessness. Perhaps the greatest of these
challenges is service engagement. The characteristics of the homeless population are
thought to be such that few will express their need for services in the proactive manner that
populations have traditionally engaged with state housing services. Rather, people who
enter the health, human and allied services system in a state of homelessness enter for
reasons other than those involving tenure, are referred in via a crisis or police service or
invited in via the efforts of charitable organisations. Other people experiencing
homelessness move through a social network consisting of friends, relatives and associates
and rarely present to homeless services (Mackenzie and Chamberlain 2003).
Engagement with services can also present a challenge even when people enter into a
service program by choice. This occurs when a client resists engaging with psycho-social
services offered in addition to an accommodation service.
Another special issue facing services for people who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness is mobilising the resources of the right type, level, and for the right period of
time to address the potentially diverse personal circumstances of clients. These
circumstances can range from financial hardship, through addictive behaviours involving
gambling, alcohol and other drugs, to significant physical disability, poor mental health, and
traumatic disorders caused by accidents, childhood abuse or neglect or negative interactions
within the justice system.
Identifying efficient and effective models of service delivery that are known to achieve the
desired outcomes of clients and governments is another issue that faces the delivery of
homelessness services (Eardley et al 2008; Flateau et al 2008; Johnson et al. 2012). There
remains significant controversy over the best way to construct, resource, implement, and
monitor services for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Some of this
controversy is driven by the underlying challenge of correctly identifying the causes of
homelessness in a given population. Another driver involves correctly identifying the lessons
3
Commencing in 2008-09 and ending in 2013-2014.
10
learned from current and prior attempts to address homelessness and translating these
lessons into services better able to meet the needs of clients.
The evaluation findings described in Chapters 5 and 6of this report are informed by these
and other special issues that face the delivery of homelessness services in Tasmania.
1.3 Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioners: Program
logic
Initiatives developed under the NPAH are informed by the approach outlined in the
Australian Government’s (2008) white paper The Road Home: a national approach to
reducing homelessness. The NPAH states that jurisdictions should aim to develop
implementation plans that address the three key strategies detailed in the White Paper
(Australian Government 2008: ix) for achieving a reduction or elimination of homelessness in
Australia. These include:

Turning off the tap: prevention and early intervention to stop people from becoming
homeless and to lessen the impact of homelessness.

Improving and expanding services – improving and expanding the service response
to homelessness to achieve sustainable housing, improve economic and social
participation, and end homelessness.

Breaking the cycle – getting people back on their feet and moving them through the
crisis system to table housing and, where possible, employment, with the support
they need so homelessness does not recur.
This represents a shift away from emergency and transitional accommodation responses to
homelessness to an emphasis on the importance of rapid access to permanent housing
options and the necessity of proving comprehensive support in order to facilitate social and
economic inclusion. Initiatives delivered under the NPAH emphasise: the timeliness of
service interventions; increasing social integration of people at risk of homelessness; and
moving people out of the crisis services system into stable forms of tenure. This approach is
translated into the Tasmanian context through the Homelessness National Partnership
Implementation Plan for Tasmania (DHHS, 2013; See also DHHS 2010, 2012a).
The logic of the SAIP program involves targeting existing Housing Tasmania tenants whose
disruptive and/or non-compliant behaviours have been brought to the attention of the
relevant responsible manager. The responsible manager assesses the situation and
arranges the intervention of the SAIP practitioner in cases where it is deemed necessary and
11
appropriate. The practitioner then contacts the client with an offer of support in resolving the
risk to the tenancy. Further sanctions by Housing Tasmania, such as the implementation of
Notices to Vacate, are suspended for the period of the SAIP intervention. The practitioner
identifies factors that underlie behaviours that are placing the tenancy at risk and seeks to
refer specialist support services. Once the tenant has progressed to a stage where the
tenancy is deemed stable by Housing Tasmania, the SAIP service is withdrawn.
The objectives of the SAIP service are to improve Housing Tasmania’s capacity to:

Sustain tenancies where support needs are evident,

Improve the health and well-being of tenants through better matching of support
requirements to need, and

Understand and work with clients who have multiple and complex needs, whose
tenancies are at risk.
1.4 Service outline
The SAIP program commenced operation in January 2011 and concluded on 30th June,
2013. The program is a NPAH initiative under the Tasmanian Homeless Plan, which was
developed by the Homelessness and Indigenous Policy, Projects and Reform team in
consultation with Housing Operations. It was delivered through a collaborative partnership
between the Operations Manager at Housing Tasmania, two Housing Tasmania SAIP
managers and two SAIP practitioners.
The Operations Manager has responsibility for: the service delivery and the maintenance
side of Housing Tasmania; overseeing applicants; allocations; tenancy management;
evictions; and the upkeep of assets. The responsible SAIP Area Manager approves referrals
made to SAIP by tenancy managers and has the capacity to exercise flexibility and
discretion in allocating funds. Thereafter, the SAIP practitioner reports directly to their
manager, who manages the service to the individual. Indirect relationships between tenancy
staff and the SAIP practitioner also contribute to the operation of the program.
The two SAIP practitioners receive referrals from the SAIP manager regarding tenancies that
have been identified as at risk. The practitioners then provide the manager with a psychosocial assessment of the client, which is informed by their professional insights into the
client’s personal circumstances and underlying issues. The practitioners also provide an
indication of appropriate interventions within the scope of the SAIP role, which would support
12
the client in stabilising the tenancy. On the basis of this assessment and the availability of
specialised services, the practitioner would then refer to external agencies or work
personally with the client to achieve a positive outcome. Where capacity allows, the SAIP
also provides support to tenants who do not fit with classificatory systems of other services
and are therefore likely to ‘fall through the gaps’. A comprehensive description of the service
is detailed in the text-box below.
Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioner
“Provide professional psycho-social assessment and intensive case co-ordination for
Housing Tasmania clients with multiple and complex housing and support needs, and whose
tenancies are at risk, in accordance with Housing Tasmania’s service delivery policies,
principles and standards.”
Purpose
The purpose of the SAIP is to use their professional skills and tools to improve Housing
Tasmania’s (HT’s) capacity to:

Sustain tenancies where support needs are evident

Improve the health and well-being of tenants through better matching of support
requirements to need

Understand and work with clients who have multiple and complex needs whose
tenancies are at risk.
The SAIP will do this through:

The undertaking of psycho-social assessments for clients who have been identified
as having sufficient support needs to warrant professional intervention and who are
at risk of homelessness.

Based on an analysis of the individual and their circumstances provide
recommendations and advice as to potential barriers to a client sustaining a tenancy
and appropriate interventions to maximise the likelihood of the client sustaining their
tenancy.

Identification of the willingness and/or capacity for the client to change.

Hands on delivery of support to clients who with a short term intervention could
become ‘change ready’ whom otherwise are at significant risk of becoming
homeless.

Case Co-ordination or Management (Co-ordination if possible) of Housing Tasmania
clients with multiple and complex needs who are at risk of homelessness.
13

Support and education of other HT staff with specific advice and information as to
how best to work with a particular client dependant on their support needs and where
best to seek external support services.
Practice Guidelines
Under the Supported Tenancy Practices and Tools, HT staff are required to actively try and
identify if clients have support needs. Where the client’s need identified is believed to be
multiple or complex, the client is referred to a ‘specialist’ officer, either a Tenancy Team
Leader (TTL) or Access and Support Planning Officer (ASPO) dependant on their status as
tenant or applicant.
Where the basis of the identified support needs is not clearly evident e.g., is not on case
load with a support service such as Mental Health Services, Child Protection, or FVCS, a
psycho-social assessment of the client may be requested of the SAIP (utilising the referral
process outlined below) as an aid in the development of the best possible outcome.
It may also be the case that staff have been working with a client for some time but:

The intervention is not progressing and the risk to the tenancy has elevated. The
client may be referred to the SAIP (utilising the referral process below) at this time for
an assessment for barriers or potential for ‘change readiness’ and suitability for direct
support from the SAIP.

A support service is declining to work with a service and the Agency Collaboration
Strategy (ACS) may need to be activated. In these circumstances an assessment by
the SAIP may be indicated in order to be better informed prior to Tier Two of the ACS
being invoked.
Referral Process
Should a TTL or ASPO see the need for a psycho-social assessment to be undertaken by
the SAIP they will make a referral through their line manager which will include a written
report outlining the known history of the client and the basis upon which the client is believed
to have multiple and complex needs and the basis for their being at risk. Where the line
Manager isn’t the Area Manager the referral will be passed to the Area Manager for final
determination as to whether the SAIP will action the referral.
14
Client Allocation and Management
Based on the psycho-social assessment the SAIP will make a recommendation to the Area
Manager as to which role is best placed to undertake the management of the client and their
tenancy. In general, the allocation of clients will be on the following basis:
Client Willing to Engage
Allocations will be to the TTL or ASPO where:

There is already an existing external support services and the Housing Tasmania
intervention is to ensure that issues placing their tenancy at risk are incorporated in
the case management plan;

There is a need to undertake case co-ordination but it requires the participation of no
more than two agencies external to Housing Tasmania.
Allocation to the MASP where:

There is a need to undertake case-coordination with more than two external (to HT)
agencies or entities.

The tenancy includes an individual who is currently involved in:

an Inter-Agency Support Team (IAST),

a Collaborative Case Conference (CCC),

the Agency Collaboration Strategy (ACS) Tier 2 or 3, or

an accepted referral via Gateway to Integrated Family Support Services
(IFSS).
In both scenarios the allocated officer may seek the support of the SAIP at one or more case
meetings to provide their professional assessment and judgement as to the best course of
intervention to stabilise the individual.
Based on Area arrangements (e.g., TTL’s attending IAST) and specific case histories clients
may be allocated to officers other than the MASP at the discretion of the Area Manager.
Client is Unwilling to Engage
Allocations will be made to the SAIP where:

It is determined that by undertaking a brief time period of direct support a client may be
capable of becoming change ready and engaging with support services which may lower
or eliminate the risk of homelessness.
15
Allocations will be made to the TTL or ASPO where:

It is determined that there is little or no likelihood of the client engaging and/or the period
of direct support likely to be required by the SAIP is such that the tenancy cannot be
sustained through the period. In these cases policy and procedure should be strictly
followed.
Direct Support
Where Direct Support provision is deemed appropriate the period of direct support must be
limited by the capacity of Housing Tasmania and the community in which the tenancy exists
to allow the tenancy to remain in place and the client’s ability through the support period to
not exacerbate the situation which is leading to a breach of lease e.g., to lessen the impact
on neighbours, to stop damaging the property etc. and the seriousness of the breaches.
Early intervention will be key in the success of direct support. Clearly the earlier the
intervention the longer is the capacity for lease breaches to be sustained to enable a
preparedness to change behaviour to develop.
Alternatively, regardless of the client’s capacity or willingness to engage if it is too late in the
eviction process or the nature of breaches is of a highly serious nature then direct support
may not be able to be given even if there is a chance of success. These cases will need to
be referred to the Area Manager for final decision.
The Area Manager will review progress on direct support interventions and make a decision
as to when either support will cease or support has been successful and the client should
return to the normal management process. In general, the allocation should be made on the
basis of the above allocation guidelines.
Source: Information provided by SAIP Area Manager, 28.5.13.
16
2 Data Collection Method and Analysis
In this chapter, we provide an outline of the data collection method and analysis for the
evaluation. In the first instance, the team collated and summarised existing service activity
data. This service activity data informs the evaluation of the effectiveness of the service in
meeting objectives. Secondly, the team consulted key service providers in order to gain
additional insights into the implementation of the service. Thirdly, the team consulted clients
of the SAIP program in order to gain insight into the client’s service experience. The
discussion and recommendations presented in Chapters 5 and 6 are based on integration
and comparison of this data.
2.1 Description of service activity data
The evaluation team have been provided with data collected and collated by SAIP
practitioners. In contrast with other supportive accommodation programs offered in
Tasmania, the SAIP program operated under the direct management of Housing Tasmania’s
operational staff. As part of the Tasmanian Implementation Plan developed under the
NPAH, key performance measures and targets were established for the program (DHHS
2012b). SAIP practitioners were required to collect information about the service activities
they performed and the outcomes they achieved.
While this dataset provides some indication of service activity and performance, discussions
with SAIP practitioners and analysis of the dataset indicate that the records of the services
undertaken by SAIP are incomplete. Analysis of the dataset is presented, but with the
qualification that such results represent an understatement of the amount of activity
performed by SAIPs state-wide.
The dataset provided to HACRU includes a range of data elements including: service levels
by region; service activities provided by SAIP; family type and ethnicity of clients; tenancy
risk and outcomes; timeliness of service delivery; and staff utilisation.
2.2 Service provider consultation
The team consulted with five SAIP service providers. The interviews lasted for
approximately one hour and were conducted between 20th May 2013 and 11th June 2013. All
interviews were conducted by telephone. The interviews were audio-recorded with
participants’ informed consent and later transcribed. The data were then subject to content
and thematic analysis. While the interview questions were tailored in order to make them
17
relevant to each service provider’s professional experience, an indicative interview schedule
is provided in Appendix A.
Service providers were asked to discuss:

What their professional role entails,

The strengths and weaknesses of the SAIP model,

Factors that facilitate or hinder service delivery,

Perceptions of client satisfaction with the support offered,

The effectiveness of the service in supporting tenants to stabilise at-risk tenancies,

How the service might be improved.
2.3 Consultation with SAIP clients
The team recruited a total of five SAIP client participants. We had sought to interview three
clients each from the north and south of Tasmania, but only two could be recruited from the
north. SAIP staff facilitated the recruitment process by: talking to residents about the
evaluation and distributing information sheets; inviting five clients to participate; providing the
team with contact details and the clients’ preferred dates for interviews; and disseminating
grocery vouchers to participants in appreciation of their contribution. Residents were
selected for interview on the basis of availability and expressed interest in participation. This
may have meant that the clients interviewed were more likely to be engaged, and to be
satisfied with the service, than others who may have been experiencing difficulties and less
satisfied with the service.
The sample of five interviewees included three male and two female clients. The clients
interviewed were aged from 40 to 70 years.
The interviews varied in length, but ranged between 20 to 40 minutes. The interviews were
audio-recorded with participants’ informed consent and later transcribed. Prior to the
interview, the interviewer confirmed that the participant understood why they were being
invited to participate in the evaluation and obtained their consent. The data were then
subject to content and thematic analysis. The resident interview schedule is provided in
Appendix B.
Clients were asked to discuss:

The process of engagement with the service,

The ease or difficulty of engaging with the service,
18

The nature and benefits of the assistance received,

Improvements to health and quality of life as a result of engagement with the service,

Improvements in social connection and reduction in social isolation as a result of
engagement with the service,

Overall satisfaction with service and suggestions for improvement
19
3 Evaluation of Service Provision and Outputs
In Chapter 3, we provide an evaluation of service provision and outputs. In section 3.1, we
begin with a description of the SAIP service levels and client demographics. We then
examine the performance measurement of service activity, which includes: output
performance; timeliness of service delivery; and staff utilisation. In section 3.2, we evaluate
the implementation of the SAIP service in terms of how effective the service has been in:
identifying and engaging suitable Housing Tasmania clients whose tenancies are at risk;
(re)connecting clients to specialist services and to regular tenancy services; and sustaining
tenancies. Service providers also provided insight into opportunities for improving the SAIP
program.
3.1 Service Activity: Description and Reporting
3.1.1 Description of service levels
To describe the service activities undertaken by the SAIP practitioners we reconstruct
several indicative service activity indicators using elements of the SAIP Statement of Duties,
established key performance indicators related to client engagement with the service and
outcomes (DHHS 2012b), and the activity data collected by SAIPs and later made available
to us.
The reader should note that the figures provided below are an understatement of the amount
of activity performed by SAIPs state-wide. Based on conversations with practitioners and
analysis of the data collected by practitioners it is our understanding that records of the
services undertaken by SAIP are incomplete. Further, we do not possess sufficient
information to give the reader a reliable estimate of the extent to which the figures we quote
below are representative of the service levels achieved by the SAIPs. We also note that
available information indicates that HT tenancy staff were extensively involved in the SAIP
program. However, the information is not sufficiently comprehensive to permit analysis of the
amount or intensity of work undertaken by tenancy staff in relation to the SAIP program.
Give these qualifications and limitations, from the available data we can identify that 203
clients recorded some form of contact with the SAIP program since establishment in January
2011. The majority of these clients were resident in the North service region (72%) with the
remainder in the South East service region (20%) and South West service region
respectively (8%).
20
Almost all clients were tenants at the time a referral was received (96%). Approximately
4 per cent of referrals involved public housing applicants, all of whom were from the
southern service regions. The available records suggest that these clients were previous
tenants or occupants of mainstream public housing.
Figure 3-1: Proportion of tenants to applicants
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
According to the dataset provided, the first referrals were recorded in January 2011 and last
recorded in December 2013. However, we have treated the single referral recorded in the
dataset for December 2013 among the referrals received in June 2013 to simplify later
analysis. The majority of referrals occurred in the North service region (n= 182, 75%) with
the South East recording 42 referrals (17%) and the South West recording 19 referrals (8%).
Practitioners principally received referrals concerning rent arrears (63%) and property
condition (14%), followed by issues concerning anti-social behaviour involving a tenant,
occupant or neighbour (9%), and the poor mental health of a tenant or occupant (7%).
21
Table 3-1: Number of referrals by Assessed Risk Condition
Region
Risk Identified
N
SE
SW
Total
Arrears
134
15
6
155
Property condition
23
5
7
35
Anti-social
8
10
3
21
Poor mental health
8
8
Refuse to renew lease
4
Abandoned
2
1
3
Homeless
1
2
3
16
4
Not Identified
2
2
Inadequate property
1
1
1
Incomplete Assessment
1
Sub-letting
1
1
Victim of Anti-social
1
1
Total
182
42
19
243
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
In each service region except the North, the main reason practitioners were involved in a
case was to conduct an assessment. However, the data shows that in the North service
region 148 referrals required the SAIP to be engaged with exit planning processes around
the time a ‘notice to vacate’ was issued. It is our understanding that most of these cases
represent the practitioner seeking to engage with clients facing possible eviction by sending
them a letter encouraging them to make contact with the program.
Table 3-2: SAIP Involvement Type
Region
Involvement
N
SE
SW
Total
Assessment
29
35
16
80
Consultation/Case Conference
2
3
2
7
Exit Planning/NTV
148
148
Intervention
2
2
Type Not recorded
1
2
182
42
Total
1
5
3
19
243
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
22
Of the 243 referrals recorded during the service period, practitioners expected 198 to require
no ongoing SAIP role (82%) beyond initial assessment.
Table 3-3: Expected On-going SAIP Involvement
Region
N
SE
SW
Total
No
90.1%
45.2%
78.9%
81.5%
Yes
9.3%
52.4%
21.1%
17.7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
Of the 45 referrals (18%) that practitioners expected would require ongoing SAIP
involvement, 39 are recorded as assessment tasks.
Table 3-4: SAIP Involvement Type (On-going Role)
Region
N
SE
SW
Total
Assessment
15
20
4
39
Exit Planning/NTV
1
Intervention
1
1
2
Type Not Recorded
1
2
3
Total
18
23
1
4
45
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
Of the 198 referrals expected not to require ongoing SAIP involvement, 41 (21%) were
recorded as assessment tasks, 7 (4%) as case conferences, and 3 (2%) resulted in SAIP
intervention (See Table 3-5).
Table 3-5: SAIP Involvement Type (No On-going Role)
Region
N
SE
SW
Total
Assessment
14
15
12
41
Consultation/Case Conference
2
3
2
7
Exit Planning/NTV
Intervention
Total
147
147
1
1
1
3
164
19
15
198
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
23
The tenancy outcomes recorded for these activities are discussed in section 3.1.3 below
covering output performance.
Caution is required in drawing any conclusions regarding regional differences. As previously
noted, the evaluation team have not been provided with a comprehensive dataset for all
serviceactivity undertaken during the course of the program. In some instances service
activity may have occurredand not been recorded.
3.1.2 Client demographics
The majority of SAIP client households were single females (n=112, 55%), with around three
quarters of these households being single women with children (n=75, 70%). Single males
without dependents accounted for approximately 21% (n=42) of SAIP client households and
single males with dependents accounted for approximately 3% (n=7) of SAIP households. A
further 11% (n=23) of SAIP client households were couples (with or without dependents),
and 9% (n=19) were multiple family households.
Figure 3-2: Number of clients by family type
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
In relation to ethnicity, most clients identified themselves as non-Indigenous (n=144, 71%),
with 12% of clients (n=24) identifying as Aboriginal and one client identifying as a Torres
Strait Islander. Less than 1% of clients specified any other ethnicity.
24
Table 3-6: Client ethnicity
Region
Ethnicity
N
SE
SW
Total
Aboriginal
20
4
0
24
Non-Indigenous
112
20
12
144
Nth Africa
1
0
0
1
Torres Strait Islander
1
0
0
1
Italian
0
1
0
1
Not specified
13
15
4
32
40
16
203
147
Total
th
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20 August 2013
3.1.3 Performance measurement of service activity
While formal service and reporting specification to guide the program was developed, this
was not fully implemented. Through discussion with practitioners and Housing Tasmania
management we understand that each practitioner collected information about the service
activities they performed and the outcomes they achieved using a data collection
methodology of their own devising. The absence of a standardised data capture limits our
evaluation of the performance of the service outputs delivered by SAIP. However, as was
done in section 3.1.1 above, we reconstruct several indicative performance measures on the
basis of available information to provide a general idea of the output performance attained
by the program. The measures we describe in this section concern:

the proportion of referrals that were assessed to require on-going SAIP involvement
and resulted in a sustained tenancy;

an example ofa time-to-service metric; and

an indication of the average utilisation of practitioners.
We also make some suggestions about how Housing Tasmania might compare the
performance of the SAIPs with the outputs attained by tenancy teams engaged with
addressing similar objectives to the SAIP initiative in mainstream public housing. However,
we remind the reader that our discussion in this section is not presented with reference to an
expected target or performance benchmark defined by Housing Tasmania. We also reiterate
the point that the activity information available to us is most likely incomplete.
25
Output performance
Practitioners recorded some information about the main risks facing a tenancy and a pointin-time categorisation of the outcome of either SAIP involvement or of Housing Tasmania
processes underway around the time of assessment. This information is presented in Table
3.7.
As a proportion of all referrals, the majority of cases cited arrears as the main risk facing the
stability of a tenancy (64%). The next largest categories of risk identified were: condition of a
property (14%); anti-social behaviour of a tenant, occupant, or associate (7%); and the poor
mental health of a tenant or occupant (7%) respectively. Together these risks accounted for
approximately 93 per cent of the risks identified4.
In general, SAIP interventions had a positive impact on sustaining tenancies, but this was
not uniformly so. At the point in time that data was recorded, approximately 44 per cent of
referrals remained intact. However, in about a third of cases the tenant was: issued with a
‘notice to vacate’ the property (14%); evicted from the property (13%); or she/he vacated the
property voluntarily (6%). No outcome was recorded in 20 per cent of cases.
Approximately 16 per cent of people recorded more than one referral to SAIP. Most of the
multiple referral records originated in the North service region. This is likely to be due to the
fact that the record of service is more complete for that region.
Where a person received more than one referral, in the majority of cases ‘arrears’ is
identified as the main risk (81%) followed by issues relating to property condition (12.5%).
Table 3-7: Number of referrals received per person
Region
Number of referrals
N
SE
SW
Total
1
119
38
14
171
2
21
1
2
24
3
7
1
0
8
40
16
203
147
Total
th
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20 August 2013
4
This figure is based on identifying a main risk for each referral received. Many referrals cited multiple risks and
in a small proportion no risk was recorded.
26
Table 3-8: SAIP Risk identified by tenancy outcome
Tenancy
Intact
Unknown/
Not
Recorded
NTV
Issued
Eviction
Tenancy
Vacated
Arrears
24.3%
16.9%
11.1%
8.2%
2.9%
Property condition
8.2%
1.2%
2.5%
2.1%
0.4%
Anti-social
4.1%
0.8%
0.4%
1.6%
0.8%
0.4%
Poor mental health
4.5%
0.8%
0.8%
0.4%
Refuse to renew lease
1.2%
Risk Identified
0.4%
Abandoned
0.4%
0.4%
Applicant
Category
Assessment
Application
Information
Property
Transferred
Total
0.4%
63.8%
14.4%
0.4%
8.6%
6.6%
0.4%
Homeless
Not Identified
Applicant
Housed
1.6%
0.4%
0.4%
1.2%
0.8%
1.2%
0.4%
0.8%
Sub-letting
0.4%
Inadequate property
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Victim of anti-social
0.4%
0.4%
Incomplete Assessment
0.4%
0.4%
Total
43.6%
20.2%
14.0%
13.2%
6.2%
1.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
100%
th
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20 August 2013
27
Of the 32 people with more than one referral, 6 (19%) were recorded with an intact tenancy
as the outcome of their most recent referral. In a significant proportion of cases where clients
were involved with multiple referrals, an eviction or property vacation was the outcome of
their most recent referral (28%).
It would be valuable to study cases involving multiple referrals more closely to identify
alternative practice opportunities suited to better addressing the specific circumstances of
these client households. Here there are opportunities to integrate mainstream housing
services with supportive accommodation services. It is possible to define a standardised
contingency process based on analysis of cases involving multiple referrals. The aim here
would be to use the features common among cases involving multiple referrals to set out a
trigger for transitioning the client household to alternative housing options. The contingency
process could then be integrated with the existing vacation policy and procedures.
Practitioners also provided an indication of some of the reasons behind the tenancy outcome
recorded (See Table 3.9). It is noteworthy that on more than one occasion a tenancy ended
as a result of an eviction process, despite the client having engaged with SAIP. Such cases
show that engagement was not a sufficient condition for achieving a sustainable tenancy
outcome.
Similarly, a number of intact tenancies recorded that the client had not engaged with SAIP
and the referral had been returned to a tenancy team to manage.
Table 3-9: SAIP tenancy outcomes and associated reasons
Reason
Tenancy
Intact
Unknown/N
ot Recorded
NTV
Issued
Eviction
Tenancy
Vacated
Did not engage
20.2%
13.2%
11.9%
4.9%
3.3%
Outstanding
issues remain
13.2%
1.2%
1.2%
0.8%
No outstanding
issues
5.3%
Requires
Transfer
0.4%
Other
53.5%
0.8%
17.3%
0.4%
5.8%
0.4%
Transition to SAF
0.4%
Unknown
4.5%
Total
43.6%
Total
0.4%
5.8%
0.8%
7.4%
2.5%
1.6%
22.6%
20.2%
14.0%
13.2%
6.2%
2.9%
100%
th
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20 August 2013
28
We suggest further light could be shed on: clients who engaged with SAIP, but were evicted
anyway; and clients who did not engage with SAIP. This could be achieved by analysing
their housing career using Housing Tasmania operational data to establish the number of
times they have been a tenant or occupant of the mainstream rental service and the length
of time they remain away from this service before they re-enter. This information could
further enhance the contingency process mentioned above regarding alternative housing
options.
Finally, to gain a better understanding of aspects of performance relating to the sustainability
of tenancies in the SAIP program a suitable benchmark should be established. We suggest
that Housing Tasmania identify a benchmark using a survival analysis5 of occupancy periods
in the mainstream rental program where SAIPs played no role. The main point of
comparison would be the rate at which tenancies end in the mainstream public housing
service in the absence of practitioner involvement and the rate at which tenancies end in
cases where practitioners had significant involvement.
Timeliness of service delivery
The SAIP practice guidelines described in Section 1.4 state that it is a key characteristic of
the direct support component of practice that SAIP intervention be provided quickly once
challenges have been identified in a tenancy. The reason cited for acting quickly is that it
allows more time for the tenant to change their behaviour and to avoid a breach of their
lease. It is valuable to assess these service characteristics with a timeliness measure.
The available data indicates that the average number of days client referrals waited to be
actioned was 2.6 workdays overall. However, in relation to the subset of records that indicate
that an intervention process took place following an assessment (34 cases), on average
35 workdays elapsed between the receipt of the referral and the date the intervention
commenced. These averages are useful indicators of the performance attained by the
program on the key time-to-service characteristic described for the direct support aspects of
practice by program management.
This result suggests that there is considerable scope to take the knowledge acquired by
practitioners and others during the SAIP service delivery period and to use it to simplify and
standardise the management of ‘at risk’ tenancies. With the appropriate changes made to
practices that trigger contingency planning and intervention one would expect to see at least
5
Survival analysis focuses on the analysis of time to events. Here it refers to what proportion of the
population will be able to sustain tenancies or rather at what rate will these tenancies fail?
29
a reduction in the variation of the timeliness of service if not also a smaller average time to
intervention.
Staff utilisation
Maintaining adequate control of the resources applied to attain desired objectives involves
keeping track of the extent to which those resources are appropriately mobilised. It is in
general considered good practice to apply resources at a level that is proportional to
demand, all else being equal. One aspect of how well such proportionality is attained is the
extent to which staff are utilised. There are a number of potential measures available to
monitor staff utilisation.
A simple starting point involves calculating the average number of service requests in a
service system and assessing this average in light of an estimate of the intensity of effort
required to meet those requests. Roughly, the first reflects the (average) volume of work
demanded and the second provides an indication of the (average) amount of effort required
to complete that work.
If we stipulate that the SAIP program ran for 30 months (January 2011 to June 2013) and in
that time received 243 requests for service, then the volume of work demanded represents
approximately eight referrals per month or 2 referrals per week state-wide. Analysis based
on the available data indicates that across the state SAIP services were requested
approximately once every four working days on average.
To get an idea of the amount of time required to address those requests we can calculate
the average time taken to close a case and the average time between case closures.
Figure 3.5 presents the available data on the number of working days6 that passed between
the date actions commenced to address a referral and the date SAIP activity on that referral
ended. Of the 208 referrals with an activity completion date there were on average
approximately 19 working days between the date a referral arrived and the date SAIP activity
was completed.
6
Working days means week days Monday through Friday. Holidays and leave are treated as working days
throughout.
30
Figure 3-3: Wait time between SAIP action and resolution
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
Similarly, the period between case completions (for all cases completed) was on average
approximately four working days.Throughout the duration of the program, which ran from
1 January 2011 to 30 June 2013, on average: one case was received about every four
working days; one case was completed about every four working days; and each completed
case appeared to have required about 19 days of effort.
Figure 3-4: Workdays between case completions
Source: SAIP, Housing Tasmania, 20th August 2013
31
Cases that involved SAIP intervention represent a greater demand on the time of
practitioners. Records show these types of cases were a minority, representing
approximately 14 per cent of referrals received. At face-value these figures together suggest
that practitioners were (on average) under-utilised.
Further analysis using a simple queuing model7 appears to lend support to this view. Using
the available data to estimate the arrival rate of referrals and the service rate required to
address referral arriving at that rate, given the available work hours for three practitioners8,
the SAIP program represented an average arrival rate of 0.39 referrals per workday and an
average service rate of 3.2 cases per workday for the duration of the program.
Based on these rates, the average time that a case is in the queue is very short and the
average time a case needs to be in the (assessment and engagement part of the) system is
less than three working days. Given these parameters, with three practitioners on hand to
provide service, the probability that SAIP would have to turn down a referral due to lack of
available time was negligible.
These results should be interpreted with caution. As mentioned above, the main parameters
informing the model are estimated from the available data, which we believe to be
incomplete. Further, a queuing model that predicts a low utilization rate should not be
interpreted to suggest that staff do not work to capacity. Rather, the model illustrates the
proportion of time required to deal with clients, given the rate at which they arrive and the
amount of time they spend being served. Additional activities undertaken by practitioners in
pursuit of the program objectives are excluded from the model, to the extent that these
activities did not affect the amount of time between taking action on a referral and the
recorded date of completion.
7
This model was defined as an M/M/S queue with three servers treating cases on a single stage first-in-first-out
basis. Main model parameters such as the arrival rate and service rate were estimated using the data
provided. The model treats a referral to be in the queue for the time between the referral date and date of
action. The service time is represented by the time between the date of action and the completion date
measured in workdays of 7 hours and 36 minutes. Analysis of the service rate for cases requiring additional
intervention has not been considered due to the small number of cases available in the record. The model
parameters refer to a service system in a steady state, which may not hold for the service evaluated. Model
sensitivity testing suggested that utilization, while remaining low, only increased appreciably with one server
or an equivalent proportional increase in service intensity.
8
We chose three servers since there were three practitioners recorded in the data set. With the estimated
arrival rate and service rate the model did not display great sensitivity to the number of servers present in the
system. For instance, the utilisation rate and the probability of a full system did not change appreciably until
only one server was specified.
32
3.2 Implementation of the SAIP Service
In addition to the preceding analysis of service activity data, the evaluation team undertook
interviews with service providers. This qualitative data provides insights into the experiences
and perspectives of SAIP managers and practitioners.
Question 1: How effectively does the SAIP identify and engage suitable Housing
Tasmania clients whose tenancies are at risk?
The qualitative data indicate that SAIP is successful in identifying and engaging suitable
Housing Tasmania clients whose tenancies are at risk. The SAIP manager/practitioner dyad
employs formal and informal procedures to identify clients who may be suitable targets for
the service. SAIP practitioners in each area benefit from professional supervision and
ongoing support from management.
The majority of staff genuinely want the best for their tenants. They say "We can't
provide this." Then you've got very very strong support from the top down, from [the
area manager] downwards. Then we've also got some very good processes in place
for referrals, we all know how that works and the only thing that's interrupted that at
all in the time I've been here has been the tenancy team's been understaffed. Other
than that it has been, I would say, seamless in my opinion (SP3, 7/6/13).
If a tenancy is failing, we get to see the superficial behaviours, meaning that they’ve
disengaged; they’re not paying their rent; the condition of property is poor; there may
be antisocial behaviour. We may never be able to get to them and talk to them.
People are telling us that there’s a problem, but we can’t get to the bottom of it. Their
role, I guess, is to be able to get in there and get some kind of understanding of
what’s going on for the client. Get to the layer underneath that (SP1, 4/6/13).
The SAIP manager’s position within Housing Tasmania is central to the decision making
process, as s/he has on-going interaction with tenancy managers and can provide the SAIP
with direct and immediate access to decision making capacity.
I have a strong relationship with the tenancy services coordinator and all of the team
leaders in tenancy services, which means that I don’t get spoken to only when people
want a decision. I’m also used very significantly as a sounding board for difficult
tenancy situations. Sometimes that means that I have a lot of knowledge about
difficult tenancies across the south. So the referral process, whilst I get a piece of
paper and I put my mark on it and I give it to the SAIP, it normally means that we
have a full range of discussion about the referral. The tenancy service coordinators
and myself sit down and actually discuss our concerns around the tenancy with the
SAIP officer. Then she can go away and start her business (SP1, 4/6/13).
Every time an eviction recommendation or a notice to vacate comes across my desk,
I still have a number of hats on. Which is: have we engaged them? And are there
33
any indicators in the tenancy of adverse circumstances like a mental health condition
or a drug and alcohol?. You can do that by what people have seen. What the
tenants are saying. If there is something there and we’ve not bothered to make a
referral around it, you can say – you can go back and say, “well look, just have a chat
and see if they’d actually want a referral or want to know about the services that
Headspace provide” or something like that, particularly when you’re heading down an
eviction path (SP1, 4/6/13).
The employment of qualified allied health professionals was identified by all SAIP service
providers as a key enabler to successful service implementation, because of the expertise it
afforded in perceiving, assessing and addressing the underlying causes of disruptive
behaviours and practices. However, SAIP managers highlighted difficulties in recruiting SAIP
practitioners in the north-west of Tasmania, due to the specialised requirements of the role
and the limited pool of suitable applicants. As a result, the benefits of SAIP intervention have
not been directly available to Housing Tasmania clients in the north-west.
The SAIP officer’s role also provides a bridge for communication between Housing
Tasmania tenancy staff and clients whose tenancies are at risk. Undiagnosed and
unacknowledged mental and emotional states are likely to underlie the complex needs
common to SAIP clients. The SAIP also acts as an educator to tenancy staff, sensitising
them to deeper issues that may underlie the disruptive behaviours of clients. This increases
the likelihood of more timely intervention.
Part of my role over time has been to inform and educate the tenancy staff, and a lot
of that has been around mental health issues too. The common stereotypes of
people who have mental health disorders are prevalent amongst the whole
community and, of course, in Housing as well. People aren't just crazy, that some
behaviours are part of their disorders and it's not personal and it's not something
necessarily they have control over either…. One of the first things I observed when I
started working here was the tenancy staff would say to me words to the effect of
"There's something not right with this person, we don't know what it is, but there's
something going on" or "They're difficult, they're not compliant, they’re
uncooperative." Upon meeting them, it became very evident, and this has been the
case numerous times, where the tenants actually have had quite serious mental
health issues which have been undiagnosed or untreated (SP3, 7/6/13).
Since the resources of the program are limited, SAIP managers and practitioners ensure that
they will be targeted effectively, by identifying clients who have the potential to engage, and
are likely to engage, in rethinking their situations and collaborating with the SAIP to build
more stable and productive lives. A key aspect of the manager’s and SAIP’s roles is
targeting limited available funds towards clients with the highest prospects of successful
34
outcomes for currently non-compliant tenants. The concept of ‘change readiness’ is central
to the recruitment process, with an emphasis on identifying the potential to develop critical
self-reflection in particular clients.
The idea of empowerment, I think, is also a strong one in here. We’re looking to
assist them to take control, assist them to actually work, understand, accept and
move on their own issues. Clearly there’s a significant motivation attached to not
losing your house, but I think what we’ve managed to do within the SAIP process is
actually turn that into a more positive, … empowering idea rather than a punitive one.
It’s not just ’do this or else’; the approach is about the person understanding the
importance of that in their life and what it actually gives them and what it would
actually mean if they don’t have that stability (SP2, 4/6/13).
We don’t invest the SAIP in a tenancy where somebody is not wanting and willing to
change, and has no capacity to change .. [However] if somebody actually isn’t talking
about wanting to change at that point in time, but they’re close to it, they’re precontemplative. They’re in the state where they know something’s not okay. After that
assessment process is done and after there is an understanding of the underlying
causal factors for the behaviour, then the SAIP can work directly with that person …
[to] provide a level of therapeutic intervention in that space; to be able to move
people from saying “I can’t deal with this now” or “I don’t want to, even though I
recognise that there’s a problem”, through to “yes, I’m ready” (SP1, 4/6/13).
For sure if the first step is engagement and they will first of all say yes to the referral
to me because, of course, it's voluntary then second of all are prepared to meet with
me and chat and go through the assessment process. That itself shows a level of
change-readiness. Then the next step is really, and it's not with my clients it has not
been a formal "We're going to sit down and we're going to do some motivational
interviewing." It's very much whilst in conversation we're talking about the barriers
that they've experienced to achieving their goals and then looking at their motivation
and where is that coming from, often talking about the cycle of change readiness
around pre-contemplation, contemplation, action and those things (SP3, 7/6/13).
Professional qualifications and experience are important in assessment because of the
consequent attunement of the SAIP to subtle, and often subconscious, messages sent by
clients as to the underlying causes of the behaviours under scrutiny.
Part of the assessment that the SAIP would do is this - I can get this person into a
drug and alcohol program, but are they actually going to participate, or are they just
stringing me along so they don't get an eviction notice later today? The SAIPs are
really good at making those judgments…. Having been around the block a few times,
you get a really good feeling as to, okay this person is genuine. They are change
ready. They do want to engage (SP5, 20/5/13).
We’ve seen quite a lot of that where people who have been cycling through housing,
cycling through support services without really any change to their behaviours, the
35
SAIP’s have been actually able to intervene in that cycle and bring them to a point of
understanding of what is required. Because generally what you find is that when you
actually get down deep into this, it’s not so much that they want to continue cycling
through that, is they don’t know how to break the cycle. They don’t know how to stop
it and no-one’s actually sitting down with them and actually talking to them about
what it means to them (SP2, 4/6/13).
Some clients may be too overwhelmed by other stressors to be receptive to the approach
and perspectives of the SAIP. Despite intensive monitoring and support, the SAIP
intervention may not be successful for such clients.
One of the challenges is that some of our clients have very chaotic lives and that can
really interrupt that process. … I'm thinking of a particular person who has a large
family, who has substance abuse problems, who's on methadone, who is trying to
hold a job, who has a child with an ongoing physical, not a disability but quite a
complex health problem. You can imagine for that person, maintaining the focus on
looking at motivation to improve the condition of her property is really difficult. The
immediate needs of getting methadone, of having to deal with the school, having to
deal with doctors, having to deal with the police at times take precedence. Those
types of things can interrupt the work around change readiness (SP3, 7/6/13).
The feature most commonly identified by SAIP practitioners and managers as contributing to
the success of the SAIP model was its empowering location within the Housing Tasmania
system, which enables it to facilitate communication among Housing Tasmania staff and
between Housing Tasmania staff and tenants.
By getting the SAIP involved fairly early in those cases, it prevents three people
trying to dig in with the client and get them to tell their story,. You’re quite often lucky
if you get them to tell it once (SP5, 20/5/13).
Being on site, having the relationship with staff, that’s a really beneficial thing,
because they can see that maybe there are other things that are impacting and
they’re not just good or bad tenants, and that change is possible. Clients or tenants
have a bit more faith that things will actually be able to get done, because you’re in a
government department. Because you’re in here with the service that’s being
delivered, you can talk directly to the people that can make the decisions. And you’ve
got the relationship where they respect your opinion (SP4, 11/6/13).
Having a position like that in Housing, I can ask the SAIP – say “look, there’s an
eviction that’s about to progress. It has actually been pretty run of the mill. There’s
nothing that’s been showing in the tenancy that would suggest that anything else is
happening here other than the tenant choosing not to engage with us around this
issue. But would you mind giving them a phone call or having a cold contact with
them, just explaining who you are and just see if they want to have a chat with you
36
about the state of the tenancy.” The reason I can do that is because I don’t actually
have to get the tenants permission to ask somebody else within this organisation to
give them a ring. That person then has the capacity to say “my name’s ... I’m
actually an intervention practitioner. But I'm not part of the hierarchy that makes the
decisions around your tenancy, which means that if you want to, you can actually just
have a chat with me about what’s going on in your tenancy at the moment and we’ll
see if there’s anything we can do in terms of changing it (SP1, 4/6/13).
Another advantage of the in-house model identified by managers was prompt and easy
access to professional allied health expertise and increased efficacy and efficiency at a
broader level, within the DHHS.
We actually have direct control over them, we don’t have to barter for their time. It’s
not a contested market in that respect. We know that we’ve got this person full time,
they’ve got a caseload of five or six at any given point in time.. These people work in
DHHS, we pay their pay check, most of the services they’re trying to get people into
are funded by DHHS, most of them directly. They’ve got relationships that are
stronger than somebody in the NGO sector, simply because they work for the same
employer (SP5, 20/5/13).
I think the capacity for the SAIP to actually be able to engage with me who can of
course sign off on these things … certainly has kept that flow going and enabled
quick movement at times to get things progressed for individuals (SP2, 4/6/13).
The SAIP role also offers clients an alternative option in cases where communication with
the tenancy offer has broken down and the client is refusing to engage. The professional
skills of the SAIP are crucial in building trust, which is likely to promote the engagement of
reluctant or suspicious clients.
The normal processes haven't worked for them and they have not responded well
and then they're now meeting somebody who's not about just the tenancy side of
things. I make it really clear to people that my role isn't with tenancy it's only about
support and the day to day, the leases, the rents, all of that stuff is not my
responsibility. We talk about how working with the SAIP is a different pathway so
they could continue doing what they're doing with tenancy and following the normal
tenancy process or they could work with me. In which case what we would be doing,
this is what I would say to them, we're spending some time getting to know each
other and what are the factors that have lead to these issues with their tenancies.
Then that puts the tenancy teams in a much better position to work with them in the
future. Sometimes there's a lot of stuff we don't know and they don't tell people and
the tenancy staff don't have the time or the skill to sit down and work with people
about this stuff (SP3, 7/6/13).
37
They’ve got the skills to engage with the client and make them feel comfortable, build
a level of trust with them and enter into an honest dialogue with them. They’ve then
got the professional skills to know what they can intervene with, themselves. Now
their role is primarily one of linking them in with other services, it’s not doing direct
intervention, but you can’t get away from doing a small amount of that. You have to
settle the person down, if they’re in immediate danger. You have to assist them
directly to remove themselves from those situations. So it’s unavoidable that you
actually wind up doing a small amount I think of that, what I’d call direct intervention
(SP5, 20/5/13).
Service gaps and inflexible classification systems governing assessment for services can
impede success, or intensify the level of client need at the time of the SAIP intervention. The
tenancy focus of Housing Tasmania does not always sit well with the SAIP practitioners’
imperative to address the support needs of non-tenant occupants, as the following example
demonstrates.
I think from my point of view the biggest challenge is always families because the
tenant is the parent, but the parent might not always have control of everything that’s
happening. It’s hard to get Child Protection involved when children are past a certain
age, and stuff like that. Whereas even with drug and alcohol, mental health, all those
things if you’re dealing with adults ultimately they’re responsible so you’re working
with them around their issues. Whereas when it’s families you might not have the
capacity to work with the people that are responsible as such. There are a lot of
services for 0-5 year old kids and there’s a lot of services for the older teenagers, like
18, that kind of stuff. But that middle bit, it’s a real gap (SP4, 11/6/13).
Having sufficient time to interact with clients was also identified as a strength of the SAIP.
It’s actually having the time to talk to people … Unless they’ve got that time, it just
doesn’t work. Time is the key here (SP2, 4/6/13).
Question 2: How effectively are clients (re)connected to specialist services and to
regular tenancy services through the SAIP?
The SAIP is a short-term, high intensity intervention. Its primary purpose is not to support
clients to address specific issues. Rather, as detailed by this manager, the focus is on
supporting clients in a bridging capacity, easing them into successful engagement with
specialised support services that will help them to address issues that are placing their
tenancies at risk.
If someone sent me an example and said, this person is working with x, y and z
successfully engaging, trying to do the work on their issues, then I would say then
that is not a case for the SAIP. The SAIP is not a support organisation or a support
worker, in the sense of working individually with that person on their particular
38
personal support need. It is about actually ensuring that they are actually capable of
engaging well with support services, are able to actually link with them, are actually
engaging in a positive manner … So if it’s a mental health issue, we’re not essentially
working on the mental health problem, we’re trying to get them to a point where
they’ll work with mental health professionals to actually do that (SP2, 4/6/13).
The responses of service practitioners indicate that the SAIP dyad is able to achieve the
objective of connecting clients to specialist services, within certain structural limitations.
Some services lack the capacity to address specific problems, as the following participant
explains.
We’re actually dealing with a lot of hoarding and squalor and one of the things was
the capacity for the sector to respond in terms of helping people clean up, those sorts
of things. Even when you got a person focused and wanting to do things, the
resources to be able to actually assist them do that, both from a physical point of
view in terms of help with a clean up, but also from a psychological point of view; to
actually support them through that process, which can be quite difficult and
significant, up to the day of a major clean (SP2, 4/6/13).
Specialist services may also operate according to interpretations and classification systems
that preclude referrals for people with non-designated conditions, such as personality
disorders. The SAIP service provides support to such tenants, who are otherwise likely to
‘fall through the gaps’ and miss out on essential support.
Mental Health service is really difficult to navigate and it's difficult to get. In my
opinion, and I stress in my opinion, it's difficult to get a consistent response from the
help line. The people who don't fall into the category of being an immediate risk to
themselves or someone else, and who are involuntary, slip right through the gap.
That's really difficult, because that leaves a whole group of people out there who are
unwell, who are not an immediate risk to themselves or someone else, who are not
going to get a service unless they deteriorate to the point where they are an
immediate risk. I see risk as not just being immediate. Someone is at risk to
themselves if they don't eat and they can't care for themselves (SP3, 7/6/13).
Service provider respondents identified the employment of qualified allied health
professionals with established networks in the local area as key factors in connecting clients
to specialised services because of the improved communication it can afford when
communicating across organisational boundaries.
With maybe one exception, [the referral process] has been really successful. Part of
the reason is that I do think for some reason some other services respond better to
someone they view as being in a professional stream, who knows the right language
to use and the right way to phrase referrals. Part of the reason is also because I've
39
worked in Launceston for so long, people know me already so I know people in most
services (SP3, 7/6/13).
A lot of the clients that the SAIP gets referred are people who sit in between other
areas of the service system, which is why we didn’t want just another case
coordination role. You get the “no, it’s not mental health, because it’s psychosis
because of a drug and alcohol issue. They’ve got to deal with the drug and alcohol
before we can actually deal with the mental health.” People, for example, say that it’s
mental health but in actual fact, it’s more of a personality disorder issue. A different
psychological disorder. What you need is somebody, like our SAIPs, who have got
the skills to be able to navigate the differences between all of that. You need a highly
skilled, allied health professional position to be able to do that (SP1, 4/6/13).
Prompt and successful referrals, and timely communication about such referrals within
Housing Tasmania, can also prevent avoidable evictions, as detailed by this manager.
What the SAIPs are able to do, because they are practitioners in the space and they
have the knowledge of the service system, and they have those personal networks,
…. They can actually get them into a [Drug and Alcohol] program now, as opposed to
get them on a waiting list for six months time, by which time their arrears have gone
through the roof and we’ve evicted them (SP5, 20/5/13).
Despite significant improvements and goodwill within the service sector, however,
communication difficulties still remain between SAIP and some specialist services.
One other difficulty was, and probably still is to an extent but a lesser extent, is the
acceptance of the individual’s expertise. So a [SAIP] has done an assessment, then
is looking and talking to a specialist in the area, let’s say Mental Health or
somewhere like that and they’re taking on board her assessment and acting upon it,
not requiring their own assessment, those sorts of things. So that sort of linkage,
through saying, yep okay, you might not be our professional, but you are a
professional and therefore we’ll accept that you have made a clear and appropriate
assessment and what you’re asking for is actually necessary (SP2, 4/6/13).
SAIP mangers and practitioners also reported improved relationships between clients and
Housing Tasmania at an organisational level. This was due to SAIP providers’ willingness to
provide additional, informal support to tenancy staff where capacity allowed and the high
levels of trust engendered by SAIP workers as representatives of the Housing Tasmania
‘system’.
[It] wasn't always the intention that the SAIP would do this, but every person who
gets a notice to vacate, the file gets popped on my desk. This is separate to the
normal SAIP work. I send them out a letter and the letter is introducing myself: this is
my role at Housing, and basically if you would like to salvage your tenancy, if you
want to work to save your tenancy and you would like some support, then please
40
give me a call if you would like to. If you are leaving your home and you would like
some referrals for some support, also give me a call. That's a job that the team
leaders always used to do, exit planning and then that came over to me (SP3,
7/6/13).
One of the things that we really seeing is, after SAIP intervention, the level of
relationship that’s actually developed with Housing Tasmania. …We’re getting
actually a lot better results when new episodes of issues start to occur from the
tenancy managers. So part of what [the SAIP] is doing is linking those clients strongly
back in with their tenancy managers, not just the support services and so what we’re
getting is a positive relationship with Housing Tasmania, not the normal big brother
government type thinking. You know, ‘you can’t tell them anything about what’s going
wrong, they’ll just be against me’. To turn that into a positive relationship where these
people are quickly coming back to us when things start to go wrong and that is really
a key element here I think, that idea of building rapport and relationship with the
broader Housing Tasmania … They’re coming back and asking for assistance and
that’s the difference. Us chasing them to saying, you know, you really need to do
something about this or we’ve got a problem to I’ve got a problem, help me. That
change in that relationship I think is really significant in this (SP2, 4/6/13).
Question 3: How effectively is the risk to clients’ tenancies reduced by engagement
with the SAIP?
Comments and examples obtained from service provider participants indicate the SAIP is
effective in reducing the risk to clients’ tenancies. As demonstrated in the following quote,
participants understood success, not as a global or absolute criterion, but in terms of
incremental steps in the reduction of maladaptive behaviours that undermine the potential for
positive housing careers in particular individuals.
I think it really depends on how you define successful tenancies. In general, I think it
is quite successful. I think that often some people might not be suitable for the
service and that needs to be taken into account too. That you’ve linked people up,
even if they’re not suitable or they’re not change ready, or they’re not wanting to keep
their tenancy. I don’t think that’s lost if their tenancy is lost, as long as you’ve been
able to link them up or assist in some way. I think some things are still a work in
progress (SP4, 11/6/13).
It’s been, I think, highly successful. .. I suppose the fullness of success, which is fully
stabilised tenancies that where individuals are no more at risk than any other
individual, if you look at that as ultimate success, that sort of stuff we’ll probably know
in five or ten years down the track. We’re certainly seeing some really significant
results, I think. If you look at it: is the likelihood that a person’s tenancy will last
significantly longer than someone who doesn’t accept SAIP intervention or doesn’t
get it? Then the answer is yes. Those tenancies will be significantly longer (SP2,
4/6/13).
41
Three specific examples of tenancies at risk that had been stabilised through the SAIP
intervention were provided to the research team by SAIP managers:
Example One: A tenant had not engaged with Tenancy staff over a number of
attempts to address the condition of property.
No other service was available to the tenant. Referral to external service was
attempted prior to SAIP referral but unsuccessful due to not fitting referral criteria.
HACC services consulted would not address squalor conditions as this does not fit
within their guidelines.
SAIP intervention filled gap in service delivery by providing assessment, intervention
and ongoing monitoring.
Monitoring has continued after SAIP intervention
concluded, which has also filled gap due to changes in Tenancy staff, staff illness
and Tenancy team’s need to prioritise workload.
SAIP was able to have intensive contact with tenant which resulted in progress within
a relatively short timeframe. This change has been sustained and has consequently
led to a reduction in work for Tenancy staff (in field calls, case notes,
correspondence, managing complaints, pursuing legal action).
The relationship
between tenant and Tenancy staff has improved as a result of SAIP intervention and
tenant no is longer avoiding contact with HT.
Example Two: A tenant has history of sporadic engagement with Tenancy staff and
disengagement with support service. Key factor in tenant’s lack of engagement is
underlying anxiety, lack of trust in others and sensitivity to perceived criticism.
There was a high risk of multi-agency involvement and negative media attention had
this tenant and children become homeless. There is also a potentially high financial
cost to DHHS to accommodate 8 children in Departmental care (as there are no
other care options available to this family).
Numerous attempts at addressing tenancy risk were unsuccessful in achieving long
term change or in increasing engagement.
42
The time that the SAIP has put into building rapport with tenant has resulted in ongoing engagement with HT, improvement in the relationship between the tenant and
HT and progress with the condition of property.
Example Three: A tenancy was at risk due to likelihood of tenant terminating her
tenancy. Tenant and child would have exited to homelessness due to having no
friends or family support and no financial means to secure private rental.
Tenancy team had attempted to engage tenant but had no success and felt
overwhelmed by the level of distress experienced by tenant.
Due to particular nature of tenant’s trauma, she would not engage with services.
Mental Health Services were not able to be involved due to lack of client consent and
not fitting within their criteria of “risk”.
SAIP was able to persist with building trust and rapport which led to engagement
from the tenant and an opportunity to address some of her underlying mental health
issues. As a result tenant is more likely to access supports during times of particular
stress or hardship.
Tenancy Officer is not reporting on-going concerns and tenancy is settled.
Despite the overall success of the SAIP intervention, however, particular client behaviours
serve to undermine the goal of stabilising tenancies at risk. An example is where tenants
consistently refuse to engage with the SAIP, even to the point of an initial conversation. In
line with comments made by a SAIP above with regard to the measurement of success, the
following SAIP manager explained how a low level of client commitment to the
property/tenancy may be the result of a client’s pervasive incapacity to engage, rather than a
considered decision on the part of the client.
In general, the reason things haven’t changed is there’s been no tie to the property.
So the house is not actually important to them. Often, I think, people are
overwhelmed with their personal issues and they’re not actually thinking about the
consequences. If you can actually have enough conversations with an experienced
person who can delve into some of these issues and get them to focus on what
actually is important: do you want or need this house? [If] someone says at the end
of that process, no, then they, I suppose, are not desperate enough at this point to
actually change, or their personal need is so dominant that they can’t actually see
43
past that. Those are the people who are still falling out of their tenancies and there
are always going to be those individuals (SP2, 4/6/13).
Question 4: In what ways did service providers consider that the SAIP model could be
improved?
All SAIP service providers interviewed for this study considered the SAIP model to be highly
effective in achieving desired outcomes. Extended support in the form of in-house
specialised services to respond to emerging or escalating situations was nominated as a
significant gap in service provision:
A level of servicing with expertise around hoarding and those types of issues, is not
available, so that’s one area where we really saw a gap. We’re really struggling to
pull together enough resources to actually progress some of this stuff. … That sort of
expertise would just be invaluable here and I tell you, you’d be surprised how many
people are out there in that bracket. It is an epidemic (SP2, 4/6/13).
I think one really beneficial thing about this role would be to do some staff training, or
a bit more consultation. For instance, hoarding is a massive issue, which Mental
Health Services don’t generally pick up as a primary concern. If we could just
educate the staff, not to deal with the issue, but just to be able to identify the
differences between hoarding and just having stuff, or having a bad tenancy and
what sort of approaches to take just in the initial stages. So going into a tenant’s
house that’s a hoarder, and saying ‘you have to throw those out,’ you’re not going to
get an outcome at all. Or if you’re walking into someone’s house that’s got borderline
personality for instance, just little tips on how to deal with that situation, and then put
it through to this position or to management (SP4, 11/6/13).
Inadequate funding, the short duration of the SAIP program, and the consequent loss of the
strong connection with Housing Tasmania were also seen to compromise the short and long
term effectiveness of the intervention. All participants expressed concerns as to the effects
on current and future Housing Tasmania clients after the termination of the service on June
30th, 2013.
People who have not had a relationship with Housing have now developed a much
better relationship with Housing, because of my role here. I'm concerned that that
will be lost. We've had people who have either been completely avoidant of housing
or very adversarial, difficult. Those people are now making contact with us; they're
coming into the office, their behaviour and attitude towards housing has changed. For
future referrals, my concern is that those people are just not going to get a service at
all (SP3, 7/6/13).
44
I think what we’ll miss … is the connectivity with Housing Tasmania, and the basis for
it. I think what we’ll find is that they’ll be a lot of people who won’t engage with that
SAIP and try to work on those issues, won’t move to being change ready because
the linkage with the Housing, as we’ve been talking about, isn’t actually there. ….
You just start to work with someone and then the funding runs out and that’s such a
consistent thing and people lose faith. And it’s harder to engage with clients because
of that. .The damage is done to relationships, because people start to trust you, you
start to work with them, they just start to make changes in their life and then you pull
out. Even young kids I’ve worked with say, what’s the point because you’re going to
go. … My other concern is, at the moment [NGOs] don’t employ the types of
professional individuals who we’re actually talking about. They do need to employ the
appropriate people that could do this work (SP4, 11/6/13).
45
4 Evaluation of Service Participant Outcomes
In Chapter 4, we present the evaluation of service participant outcomes. Service participant
outcomes are evaluated in terms of: aspects of the service that had encouraged clients to
engage with the SAIP; aspects of the service that had encouraged clients to collaborate with
the SAIP; the extent to which clients’ health and wellbeing had improved as a result of the
SAIP intervention; and the extent to which clients’ social connections had been enhanced
through engagement with the SAIP intervention.
All clients reported very high levels of satisfaction with the SAIP service. Notably, no client
participants knew the name of the SAIP service, or considered that s/he had been accessing
a discrete service at all.
I didn’t even know that the Housing Department had the sort of help, so I thought it
was great. It’s a real bonus that they had someone in there that works, doing what
she does (C2, 20/6/13).
Question 1: What factors had influenced client participants’ decision to engage with
the SAIP?
Clients varied in the degree of insight they displayed into the seriousness of the situation that
had prompted the SAIP intervention, and their own contributions to the development of that
situation. One participant identified the catalyst of the SAIP intervention primarily in terms of
poor communication on both sides, which had been rectified to his satisfaction by the direct
and diplomatic intervention of the SAIP manager.
I’m not saying it’s all Housing’s fault, because I did things that I could have done
better. I realise that, but when you get in a situation where depression is involved,
you’re not always thinking that rationally. I quite freely admit and I admitted that there
were things I could have handled better, but I didn’t, and they were in the same boat.
It was a learning experience I suppose (C3, 20/6/13).
Another client reported that her active life had effectively ground to a halt, due to her feelings
of disempowerment and hopelessness following the placement of one her children in care,
and that she would not have been able to function without the support of the SAIP.
If they didn’t have someone like her there, I’d still be at rock bottom and not giving a
rat’s arse about what was going on around me, giving up on everything. I probably
wouldn’t even have a home now. I probably would’ve gave up to that extent. I’m
really grateful for the support. She wouldn’t let me give up, whereas I think I had. She
was definitely my rock (C2, 20/6/13).
46
Two participants, whose main difficulty had been maintaining an appropriate level of order
within their units, disclosed that feelings of shame and embarrassment had initially made
them reluctant to engage with the SAIP. Having the option to have the first meeting on
Housing Tasmania premises, rather than in his own home, had been an important factor in
one client’s decision to meet with the SAIP and would have been welcomed by a second
respondent.
I was having a hard time doing the upkeep with this unit and housing suggested that I
go meet with [SAIP] to work out plans to continue to get it together. She asked to
bring her around or have an appointment and I opted for the appointment because I
wasn’t quite ready for somebody to turn up at the unit. I was embarrassed, put it that
way, of what they’d say or see (C4, 28/6/13).
I didn’t know [SAIP] to start with, but before I seen her, there was a shame to the
house inside at the time, and she was here. It weren’t a case where I had a chance
to meet her and get to know her at Housing to start with. … A lot of the reason why I
had trouble getting help to start with, was because I was given by people, or had a
feeling, that people were always judging you. …I was frightened of the reaction that
might come, not that did come, but might come (C3, 20/6/13).
Another participant had come to the realisation that he could no longer manage on his own.
Categorising the SAIP intervention as an intermediate intervention that was distanced from
‘welfare’, helped him to overcome his misgivings in the interests of achieving a less chaotic
existence.
Well the service they had was sort of in, to me, the point between full welfare, if
you’re totally lost it, to where you’re totally with it. Sort of an in-between place,
without a lot of the stigma to it. …I wanted to get this place clean, I needed some
help and I didn’t really know where to go, what to do. A person of my age, even
though I had medical problems, heart and a few other odds and ends, I didn’t really
like reaching out. I was stubborn I suppose you’d call it; independent, stubborn. It got
to a stage because of my [health] problems on top of everything else, the place was
getting like, paper scattered all over the floor. I’d start to clean and I just couldn’t. I’d
clean a two foot by two foot square; by the time I got around to doing some more,
that was that covered over (C5, 28/6/13).
A significant factor in the following participant’s decision to engage with the SAIP had been
the encouragement and reassurance that came from her emphasis on the value of small
improvements.
I was at a pretty low ebb. I suffer from clinical depression and anxiety. Because of the
tension of what was going on, I was having bouts and I didn’t trust. [The SAIP] came,
and I just didn’t know whether I could be bothered, to be quite frank. [SAIP] came
and spoke with me and we worked out a plan. She explained that small steps were
as a good as any. We set goals and they went pretty well, but I didn’t feel that I had
47
to. If I didn’t meet a goal, I was quite happy just to tell [SAIP]. I didn’t feel ‘Oh god,
what’s going to happen now? I haven’t done that!’, because she was just very
supporting and helped me (C3, 20/6/13).
In keeping with the observations of service provider participants, one client noted his
appreciation of the opportunity to attend to the risk to his tenancy, while temporarily
bypassing tenancy officers with whom he had developed strained relations.
Well the help was basically meet with [SAIP or lose the unit, but I didn’t mind. It was
easier to talk to [SAIP] than it was to talk to Housing. To me she didn’t seem like she
was with Housing. Housing is all officious, and [SAIP] was more of a, like, counsellor.
I assumed that’s what she was. I was more at ease with talking to her than talking
with Housing. Housing were more officious all the time (C4, 28/6/13).
Question 2: What factors had facilitated client participants’ collaboration with the
SAIP?
The collaborative, persistent, yet non-judgmental approach adopted by SAIP practitioners
and the opportunity for informal interactions during unstructured time were reported by
clients to be both appealing and reassuring.
We just have a chit-chat and we talk about issues … I find it hard to talk to some
people, but [with SAIP] I just relax and let it all come out. It doesn’t bother me. She
sort of understands and if she thinks she can help, she will. I could tell her my life
story and she would understand in the end. I can give her a few ideas and she’ll give
me a few ideas and we can sort of mix it up. … She says how about we try this, or
how about we try that, and I do what she suggests. Sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn’t, but nine times out of ten, it works (C1, 19/6/13).
What she does, I don’t know if it’s how the [SAIP] job’s meant to be, but they have a
lot more interaction with you. They visit your home a lot more often and it’s not for an
inspection, so you’re not rushing around thinking “I’ve got to mop the floors or clean
my home”. [Tenancy officers] pick on the littlest thing, the fan on the ceiling, “that’s a
bad mark on the roof”. You don’t have to worry about her coming in and saying, ‘that
fan’s not clean and your floors are not mopped and you need to vacuum and do the
general tidy’ sort of thing (C2, 20/6/13).
She wasn’t too overbearing, she gave me leeway. She didn’t hit me with a
sledgehammer and say, ‘do this, do that’ (C4, 28/6/13).
As the following quotes illustrate, the SAIP provider’s impartiality and willingness to listen
paved the way for clients to understand better other perspectives on the difficulties they were
currently experiencing with Housing Tasmania.
48
She [SAIP] isn’t authority; that’s why I had trouble to start with. … She seemed to
understand, she didn’t try to lecture me. She was prepared to listen, she’d put her
opinion across and I’d say I agree or don’t agree, that’s where it would stop, it
wouldn’t get pushed, which made it a lot easier for me to be comfortable around her.
…, You’ve got a chance to actually talk through and hear from another side. You
might think of something and they go, ‘no, no, that’s not quite right’, and until then
you think it is right (C5, 28/6/13).
She listened in a non-judgemental way. I explained my point of view and she
explained some of the things of Housing and background and I just trusted her. It
was just positive; it didn’t become me bad mouthing Housing and her sticking up for
Housing, we just went through and I decided the past was the past and from that day
forward, that was going to become the new (C3, 20/6/13).
As this participant, pointed out, the SAIP performs a valuable bridging role between the
client and Housing Tasmania management, which can be traversed from both directions.
There’s times where there’s been damage in the house, it’s like, “oh look, [SAIP], this
has happened again” and then she’s let the Housing Department know for me,
instead them of having to come out and rouse onto me. I think that’s a lot easier to if
someone’s there to inform them, instead of them harassing you. … I think because
she can talk for you to the Housing Department, and because she gets to know the
client, she gets to know how we live, what’s going on in our lives, whether anything is
going to be causing any sort of disruption in our house or anything like that, and
she’s able to inform us. She it keeps them knowing – they know everything about you
anyway, but if they didn’t have a person there like that, there’d probably be a lot that
went passed them that they didn’t know about (C2, 20/6/13).
Question 3: To what extent have clients’ health and wellbeing living improved as a
result of the SAIP intervention?
Client’s responses indicate that the SAIP service had significantly improved their health and
wellbeing. In some cases, this was achieved through assistance with acquiring practical
skills, such as better household budgeting.
She just sort of explained that if you do it this way, it might work better, but you don’t
have to do it that way, do it your way. But my way wasn’t working but [with SAIP’s]
way did. So it works like that every day, every week now I do it that way (C1,
19/6/13).
Another client had chronic co-morbidities and did not expect his general health to improve,
but had been successful in applying for a disability pension with the help of the SAIP. In
other cases, the improvement was achieved through a transfer to another Housing
Tasmania property in an area that better suited their needs.
49
[My new unit] is a lot more central then [former suburb] because I don’t drive for
health reasons and my doctor is [closer now] and I had a lot to do with specialist
clinics at the Royal and a bus is about half an hour to Glenorchy and probably an
hour and a quarter on the express to town (C3, 20/6/13).
Clients also highlighted the importance of having a secure place to live in an area where
they and their families felt accepted and ‘at home’, as is demonstrated by the comments of
this recently relocated client.
I do a bit of walking and I take my grandson to the park and things like that, which I
enjoy doing. [In the previous area] it was too far way. It doesn’t matter what [the
house] looks like inside, as long as it’s a good area and the kids are right and the
kids are happy. That’s it. That’s all that matters. The kids are more relaxed; they’ve
got more stuff to do; they don’t have to worry about busybody neighbours stressing
them out. I don’t have the stickybeak neighbours telling Housing everything I do (C1,
19/6/13).
One participant explained that, in addition to helping with his transfer, the SAIP provider had
assisted him to obtain permission from Housing Tasmania to keep a small dog, and that this
had led to improvements in his health. The health benefits of having a companion animal is
also described in the second quote below.
Because of my medicals, I just got it up, medicals and temper I suppose you’d call it,
to help me settle down, [the SAIP] talked to Housing and got them to talking where I
could have a small dog with me. My doctor was also pushing as well. [The dog’s] a
companion; it’s I’m not totally by myself. It settles me down a hell of a lot. . I told the
doctor this quite often, but my heart problems have halved, my kidney problems have
decreased, and it’s all because of companionship (C5, 28/6/13).
Because one of my health problems is heart disease, I need to walk, which I do
diligently everyday with the dogs and if I’ve ever felt like I didn’t want to, the dogs
certainly don’t let me. … Up here, there’s still some sort of semi bushlands and
grassed areas where I can walk the dogs, so we’re not on the roads all the time (C3,
20/6/13).
Most respondents also reported appreciating psychological and emotional support, which
helped them to develop higher levels of optimism and resilience.
I’m not so jumpy. I’m actually sleeping a little bit better that I was. I maybe have a
bad day, then the next day blow it over and say, well it’s a new day, start again. The
next day might be better (C1, 19/6/13).
Interviewer: If you had to think about the best thing that came out of this service, the
best aspect of the help that you received, what would that be?
How can I put it? That what I cared about mattered to somebody (C3, 20/6/13).
50
Question 4: To what extent have clients’ social connections been enhanced through
engagement with the SAIP intervention?
Some clients reported that having a house or unit that was big enough to accommodate a
visitor had helped them to maintain connections with family members who lived far away.
The unit is big enough to when my son does come down from Melbourne and so
forth, that he can stay for a couple of days (C5, 28/6/13).
Obtaining a transfer to an area that better suited their needs also assisted clients to build
stronger and wider social connections.
I’ve actually got mates that live in [current suburb], so I can go out in the car and
have coffee with somebody. I’m not actually housebound. I I didn’t know anybody in
[former suburb]. In [current suburb], I know lots of people, so I get to go out. I don’t
have to sit at home (C1, 19/6/13).
For one participant, the knowledge that his transfer had been approved had served as a
catalyst for re-engagement with friends and family.
When my depression was bad, I sort of excluded people. It got to the stage where I
wouldn’t answer my door and I wouldn’t answer my phone … [After the transfer was
approved], I was just happy and engaged with people just by the simple thing of
ringing people and saying “guess what? My transfer is going to happen!” and things
like that. And then when it did happen, family and friends offered to help pack, so it
did engage me with people again (C3, 20/6/13).
The following client commented that her relationship with her son was improving, as a result
of SAIP support being extended to her son.
She did the results for me. Even my kids, they were a little bit iffy. [My son] has spent
a lot of time with her too, and he reckons she’s awesome. She just understands. She
knows where we’re coming from. My eldest one, we didn’t see a lot of each other,
because things have gone a bit wrong for him, and he’s back home now. [SAIP
provider] is showing support for him (C1, 19/6/13).
The assistance provided from SAIP helped this client restore order to his living environment
which paved the way to a more connected social life.
I would say it’s building the confidence in me, because, let’s see, how would I say it?
Having the structured order to get the unit back together, that gave me more selfworth which promoted me to think about going out and seeing more people and
reacquainting myself with people. …She [SAIP ] helped me. I’m pretty sure that I’m
reacting a lot more with people than I was (C4, 28/6/13).
51
5 Discussion of Service Provision and Outcome Information
Improvements in client outcomes, including increased tenancy stability, better health and
wellbeing and reduced social isolation, strongly support the efficacy of the SAIP program
within a range of contexts. Much of this support was delivered in an indirect and informal
manner, in response to situations and behaviours that were either directly or indirectly
impacting on tenancies. These interventions were of central significance in helping clients to
become more open and responsive to alternative points of view and to more productive
future possibilities. For example, a client who had been feeling depressed and overwhelmed
by a family crisis and as a result had disengaged from everyday responsibilities and
activities, reported having gained hope, direction and a sense of control from informal
discussions with the SAIP. As a consequence, the client had made positive changes to the
way she engaged with others.
The SAIP was successful in building and, in some cases, restoring clients’ trust in the
Housing Tasmania system. It was also successful in improving communication and rapport
between clients and tenancy officers. In one instance, the SAIP had helped a client to
overcome the shame and sensitivity to criticism he had felt over the disarray within his home,
by directing his attention to his failing health and reduced capacity. As a result, the client had
become more receptive to consideration of aspects of his own behaviour that were impacting
on his tenancy and he had become more positive and cooperative in engaging with other
representatives of Housing Tasmania. In another instance, the SAIP’s intervention as a
client advocate had contributed to HT management’s decision to reconsider regulations that
had prohibited a client’s ownership of a companion animal. This decision had resulted in
improved health and wellbeing outcomes for this client.
More generally, clients reported that the SAIP had supported them by recognising the value
of small steps they had taken towards achieving desired outcomes, even though those
desired outcome themselves had yet to be fully realised. Where capacity allowed, the SAIP
had also been able to extend the scope of her support to include a dependent of the tenant
who was damaging the HT property, as well as the tenant who was legally responsible for
that damage. Clients also reported that practical assistance from the SAIP had led to
positive psychological improvements.
52
Despite the program being a manifest success from the client’s perspective, some problems
were encountered with program delivery. Housing Tasmania’s lack of success in attracting
appropriate applications for the SAIP position in the North West of Tasmania reduced
Housing Tasmania’s capacity to respond to ‘at risk’ tenancies and to distressed clients in
that service region. Difficulties in communicating across professional boundaries also meant
that clients were not necessarily able to access drug rehabilitation or mental health support
in all regions, despite the best efforts of SAIPs to implement and expedite referrals.
The responses of participants’ also point to a mismatch between the service providers’ and
the clients’ perceptions of the fit between the tenancy officer and SAIP roles. While service
providers understand the relationship as complementary, clients tended to see the roles as
opposed. Despite this, the service providers’ comments demonstrate that tenancy officers
are motivated to understand the complex factors underlying the non-compliant or disruptive
behaviours of some Housing Tasmania tenants, and that receiving informal ‘training’ from
SAIPs has increased their understanding of these factors. This increased understanding
appears to have assisted tenancy officers to manage Housing Tasmania properties more
effectively within the scope of their duties. The responses also suggest that continued
separation of property-focused (tenancy) and client-focused (social support) interventions
may be a worthwhile approach to achieve optimal outcomes for at-risk tenancies.
In light of this finding, perhaps the greatest value of the SAIP program besides the client
outcomes achieved, is the clarity it can bring to the roles clients expect Housing Tasmania
staff to play. We find three roles that can be readily identified.
First, clients of Housing Tasmania’s mainstream rental service expect and appear to
understand that tenancy staff must play the role of landlord. Second, clients appreciate
interactions with staff (whether tenancy or SAIP) that are meaningful and respectful of their
specific circumstances. Third, for those clients affected, a conciliation role was valued
whether or not it led to a sustained tenancy. Based on the responses from clients, it appears
that tenancy staff are at times performing all three of these roles and that SAIPs have
focussed on the second two roles. However, clients are not always clear regarding which of
these roles a tenancy officer plays.
Clients’ comments indicate that the landlord role is the default role clients expect to
encounter when they interact with Housing Tasmania. This role is characterised by activities
such as the creation and ending of a tenancy agreement, the expectation of paying a
contribution toward rent, and the practices associated with maintaining a property in an
adequate condition. What this role means to clients depends on the memorable interactions
53
they or their associates have had with tenancy staff and is coloured by the operational
polices that have most affected them.
The second role represents for some clients the expectation that the landlord’s role should
be influenced by the fact that Housing Tasmania provides a service that includes some
limited social supports and flexibility in the application of policy in response to local or
personal circumstance. In general this role can be characterised by client expectations that
Housing Tasmania delivers a welfare service.
The last role is characterised by access to an independent or objective third party who can
help resolve disputes that arise between clients and staff when acting as landlord. This role
addresses the need to identify opportunities to resolve a problem to the mutual satisfaction
of the parties involved and is naturally associated with the task of dispute resolution and
conciliation.
We suggest that Housing Tasmania would benefit from: clarifying these roles; investigating
best practice for each of these roles; and incorporating relevant elements in services it
commissions or provides in-house. The SAIP initiative gives Housing Tasmania the impetus
to clarify the roles of tenancy staff by considering the extent to which the three roles
described above fit with the existing duties and the skills/qualifications associated with
tenancy positions.
Part of the challenge of clarifying the roles required of tenancy staff is identifying the basis
on which a role can be performed to the benefit of clients of Housing Tasmania’s rental
services. The landlord role is clearly implied by the Residential Tenancy Act 1997, which,
among other things, provides the basis for establishing a tenancy agreement with its
associated rights and responsibilities and the grounds on which a tenancy agreement can be
extinguished.
While the general purpose of Housing Tasmania and the means by which it may achieve
that purpose is less clearly specified, it is generally accepted to be described by the Homes
Act 1935 and by the various housing agreements made with the Commonwealth. Besides
the operational context implied by the fact that Housing Tasmania is part of the Human
Services division of the DHHS, it is from interpreting housing support agreements and
legislation such as the Homes Act 1935 as acts or agreements for attaining a social good
that clients are justified in expecting Housing Tasmania to play a social role beyond the mere
provision of housing. But these two bases for service operations also hold the potential to
54
conflict and this may go some way towards justifying the perspective which finds the role of
tenancy staff and SAIPs opposed.
One important finding of the evaluation on this subject is that SAIPs helped clients to better
understand the point of Housing Tasmania’s mainstream rental services and allied
alternatives and that this increased the client’s confidence and willingness to engage. This
suggests that not all clients understand why social housing services are made available and
in particular what Housing Tasmania is trying to achieve. The positive influence such
information had in a number of cases suggests that Housing Tasmania should not
underestimate the value of making its purpose and policies transparent to the community it
services.
Another area of potential conflict involves the application of bio-psycho-social assessments
by Housing Tasmania staff involved with the delivery of rental services. For example, the
description of the activities of the SAIP program includes gathering information about a
person apparently for use in processes affected by the Residential Tenancy Act 1997. This
may occur, for instance, when a practitioner conducts a ‘psycho-social’ assessment of a
client while the client is subject to an eviction process. In such cases there is potential to use
information about the social or psychological profile of a person to influence decisions that
may affect their continued access to housing.
This issue is also of concern in relation to the general principles informing the NPAH. To the
extent that assessments performed by SAIPs are used to inform management decisions
concerning access to housing they appear to be inconsistent with NPAH initiatives that untie
accommodation services from social support services. Here we note the responses gathered
indicate that while in some cases SAIPs appear to have produced information about a tenant
during the period an eviction process was underway, practitioners also continued to provide
support to clients after a tenancy agreement ended. This indicates that practitioners
considered their role to extend beyond the scope of a tenancy agreement. But because
information gathered by SAIPs may be perceived by clients’ to affect their access to
accommodation this extended role is compromised.
Finally, in terms of the general construction, funding and project management of the SAIP
service we suggest a number of improvements could be made. First, the funding allocation
for the program appears to have been inadequate, and the short duration of the SAIP
program coupled with the consequent loss of the strong connection between practitioners,
staff and Housing Tasmania compromises the short and long-term effectiveness of the
55
intervention. All service provider participants support this finding when they express concern
for current and future Housing Tasmania clients following the end of the SAIP program.
Second, the data capture and performance reporting regime used in the initiative was clearly
inadequate. Greater support could have been provided to practitioners and other relevant
staff by the appropriate performance reporting and data analysis functional unit within
Housing Tasmania. Providing practitioners with a web browser based reporting template that
fed data into a single secure database link with Housing Tasmania’s main operational data
store would have simplified and standardised the data capture process and increased the
ease with which management staff could have monitored the performance of the program
while it was being delivered.
Third, a gap in the data capture on SAIP activity is the shortage of standardised and reliable
evidence about client needs and the risk associated with the sustainability of their tenancy.
The assessment process applied by practitioners could withstand greater standardisation by
adopting a validated assessment protocol adequate to the purpose of identifying needs and
risks in the broader context of supportive accommodation services rather than in the
narrower context of mainstream tenancy services9. A number of options are currently
available such as the assessment measure CANSAS10.
These data-capture issues are intertwined with the task of clarifying the various roles
described above. Using the appropriate assessment tools produces data that can help to
identify the points at which critical interventions are required and can inform a process of
identifying interventions that are known to promote sustainable tenancies. Tasks and roles
can then be formed around such interventions. For example, information gathered during the
evaluation suggests that practitioners at times played the role of conciliator, which was
critical to the outcome obtained, but because the role wasn’t transparent to clients and
tenancy staff it wasn’t obvious the role was critical to obtaining desired outcomes. In this
case the assessment process used by practitioners did not necessarily address the
relationship between tenancy staff and client or collect information about the health of this
relationship because its principal focus was the client.
9
This context is characterised in the description of the SAIP role in Section 1.4 above.
Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule.
10
56
6 Recommendations to Stakeholders
It is clear that the Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioner program has provided
a high quality assessment and support service that has been critical in assisting Housing
Tasmania clients to sustain their tenancies, improve their general health and wellbeing and
reduce their social isolation. We recommend that the SAIP program be resumed, but with
the following modifications:
1. Improve the transparency and availability of information about the purpose of
Housing Tasmania.
2. Clarify the roles of tenancy staff. This can be achieved by considering the extent to
which the three roles outlined in the discussion section of this evaluation fit with the
existing duties and the skills/qualifications associated with tenancy positions.
3. Investigate best practice for tenancy and support roles relevant to Tasmanian service
context and incorporate relevant elements in the mainstream rental service and in
services commissions by Housing Tasmania.
4. Apply clarified assessment and intervention roles to all Housing Tasmania clients so
that those directly responsible for problem behaviours can be better identified and
supported.
5. Analyse SAIP cases involving multiple referrals in order to better understand the
specific circumstances of these client households and to respond appropriately and
effectively. Here there may be a case for enabling clients to transition to alternative
housing options such as supportive accommodation services.
6. Capitalise on the knowledge acquired by practitioners and others during the SAIP
service delivery period by simplifying and standardising the management of
tenancies with a risk profile associated with unsustainable tenancies. This risk profile
might then be connected with an appropriate trigger to commence contingency
planning and intervention.
7. Provide greater support to staff by defining and communicating appropriate
performance reporting and data analysis specifications. Use contemporary data
collection methodologies to simplify and standardise the data capture processes.
57
8. Make use of Housing Tasmania data collections to conduct queuing analysis and
service model simulations to inform and monitor resource allocation for in-house
services and to scope, fund and performance measure outsourced services. In
particular, such analysis should inform:
a. The amount and staging of funding allocated to the service.
b. The length of time expected to pass before seeing the desired outcomes.
c. The number of staff, their location, and their schedule of availability.
9. Identify a benchmark for intervention and assessment process using a survival
analysis of occupancy periods in the mainstream rental program where SAIPs played
no role. This entails comparing the rate at which public rental tenancies end in the
absence of practitioner involvement and the rate at which tenancies end in cases
where practitioners had significant involvement.
10. Tie the use of assessment tools to data collection systems to better monitor which
critical interventions are required to promote sustainable tenancies.
58
References
Australian Government (2008) The road home: a national approach to reducing
homelessness, White Paper, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs, Canberra.
DHHS (2010) Coming in from the cold: Tasmanian homelessness plan 2010-2013,
Department of Health and Human Services, Hobart.
DHHS (2012a) Coming in from the cold: mid-term report April 2012, Department of Health
and Human Services, Hobart.
DHHS (2012b) Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan – Confidential internal
document, May.
DHHS (2013) National Partnership on Homelessness Tasmanian Homelessness
Implementation Plan – Updated Version, Department of Health and Human Services,
Hobart.
Eardley, R, Thomposon, D., Cass, P., and Dadish, A. (2008) Measuring the impact of SAAPfunded homelessness services on client self-reliance, Report for the SAAP Coordination and
Development Committee, research commissioned through the Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Flateau, P., Zaretzky,K., Brady, M., Haigh, Y. And Martin, R. (2008) The cost-effectiveness
of homelessness programs: a First assessment, Volume 1 – main report, Australian Housing
and Urban Research Institute.
Johnson, G., Parkinson, S., and Parsell, C. (2012) Policy shift or program drift?
Implementing Housing First in Australia Final Report No.184, Australian Housing and Urban
Research Institute: Melbourne.
Mackenzie, D. and Chamberlain, C. (2003) Homeless Careers: Pathways In and Out of
Homelessness, report from the Counting the Homeless 2001 Project, Swinburne and RMIT
Universities.
59
APPENDIX A
Interview schedule – SAIP Service providers
1. Can you tell me about your role in delivering the Specialist Assessment and Intervention
Practitioners program?
2. Is this a comprehensive list of the main activities of the SAIP program? If not, what other
activities does the program include?

Undertake professional psycho-social assessments and respond to client needs

Develop action plans that identify housing and support options for clients

Negotiate the service system and provide targeted referrals for client

Support clients to position themselves for long term housing

Network with business, community and government agencies in order to ensure
access to services for clients

Provide support and contribute to improved client management
3. Did you experience any difficulties or challenges in delivering these activities? How might
this be improved?
4. Are there any gaps in the current SAIP model? What other activities and services might
be helpful in supporting clients?
5. Did you collaborate in the delivery of this service with other Housing Tasmania staff,
including tenancy managers? If so, how does this collaboration work in practice? Could you
describe any factors that facilitated or hindered this collaboration?
6. Did you experience any difficulties or challenges with linking up with other organizations
and services? How might this be improved?
7. How important has the professional qualification and expertise of the Specialist
Assessment and Intervention Practitioners been in: a) liaising and communicating with other
organizations; b) delivering a high quality service?
60
8. The main objectives of the SAIP program are: to sustain tenancies; and to improve the
health and wellbeing of clients through better matching of support requirements. To what
extent, do you think the service has been successful in meeting those service objectives?
9. What do you think are the key factors underpinning the success of the program?
10. Are there any groups or individuals who do not benefit from this service? Are there any
client groups that pose particular challenges for service delivery? How might this be
addressed?
11. Can you think of any specific case examples of a successful client experience/ an
unsuccessful client experience of your service?
12. Do you think the concept of being ‘change-ready’ is a useful one for this client group?
Can you explain the significance of this concept in assessing client support needs?
13. Do you think the location of housing or the type of housing compounds difficulties for
clients? Is there scope within the SAIP program to address this (ie through relocation)?
14. Have practitioners been adequately supported in the delivery of the SAIP program?
What additional support would have assisted them?
15. Is there anything that might have been done differently? What could have helped
practitioners in the field to better support their clients?
16. Do you think the SAIP model is the best approach to supporting people whose tenancies
are at risk?
17. What more do you think could be done to improve support services for people with high
and complex needs whose tenancies are at risk?
18. The SAIP program will end in June, what do you anticipate will be the impact of the
withdrawal of this service on residents whose tenancies are at high risk?
19. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Thank you for participating – we appreciate your time and contribution to this project.
61
APPENDIX B
Interview schedule – SAIP client participants
Background
Ascertain gender, age, children (ages, resident or non-resident), partner or no partner.
Specific service under evaluation
1. When was the first time that you heard about the SAIP service?
2. How did you find out about the help you could get? Was it easy to understand the
kind of help they could give you?
3. What kind of help do/did you get? Was it the kind of help you wanted?
4. How many people do you see from this service? How often do you see them?
5. Can you describe what happens when you get the SAIP service?
6. Do you think you and the workers from this service think the same way about what
will help you most? (prompt for goals and priorities)
7. How does it feel to use this service? How are you treated? Do you feel that your
opinions and preferences are taken into account?
8. Is it hard or upsetting to talk to your service worker about your personal situation and
any problems you have? (If so) how could that be made easier?
9. Is your life better now as a result of using this service? If so, in what ways? If not,
why not?
10. How long did it take after you began using this service for you feel that your life was
improving?
11. How much of the improvement in your life do you think is due to the service, and how
much from other things?
12. Do you live in a house or an apartment? Do you like living there? What is good or not
so good about the place where you live? (Dwelling and surroundings)
13. What is the most important thing about this house/unit/area for you?
14. Do you want to stay in this house/unit? If so, why do you want to stay there? If not,
why not? How long do you think you will stay there?
15. (If participant has resident children) Do you think using this service has helped you to
care for your children?
16. Has this service helped you to get in touch and stay in touch with people you like to
spend time with (this may or may not include family/friends/community)?
62
17. Has using this service helped to improve your health?
18. Do you think the help you have received from this service has helped you manage
your life better (e.g. budgeting)?
19. Have you been doing any education or training courses while using this service? (If
so), did using this service helped you to enrol and continue with this course?
20. What has been the best thing about using this service?
21. Has any part of this service been difficult, upsetting or annoying? Can you think of
anything that could have improved the situation?
22. Overall, do you think you have received enough support from this service, not
enough or too much?
23. If you could change anything you wanted about the help you have received from this
service, what might that be?
24. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Thank you for participating – we appreciate your time and contribution to this project
63